Well. Thing is when you get over 7 secs it seems like "omg", it never shoots. But most of these units have ways to lower it. There are certain abilties or simply vet steps and commanders. So even when going as high as 8 or 8.5 secs you can bring them down to approx 7 secs and less. And Panther as well as the stug or shermans have 7 secs reload atm. Things might get nasty at above 8 seconds. But non of the affected units is without abilties to greatly reduce it.

If we go above 7 secs or not is not the main issue. The simple core statment is that i think that tanks that dominate the ranged combat due to their sheer power (damage/pen) should not also keep the upper hand in heated close range battles in terms of rate of fire.

And when US shermans (but also axis stugs to some extend) do not favour penetration at distance or damage then it should at least be the rate of fire. Simply shelling the enemie with a few quite fast shooting tanks. You wont win 1 vs 1 engagments at range, but therefore in mobility, rate of fire and numbers would finally have some decisive impact perhaps.

For me, I personally think that turret traverse speeds and vehicle accelerations are all good currently in Bk Mod.. not exactly accurate, but close to being realistic or at least simulated in an arcade way of which is based on a realistic background, so for example the Tiger1 has slower turret rotation than Shermans as well as Pershings and most tanks too.. but Wolverines and Panther.D are the slowest of all. Which is so far realistic... I'm aware that generally the turret traverse speeds may not be simulating the reality in a precise way, as they could be ALL way slower.. however, the current speeds are realistically related to each other. So, it's impossible to see Tiger1 having faster turret rotation than the Hellcat in BK Mod for example!So, that's just my opinion... I don't think any tank accelerations or turret traverse speeds are in need of any further tweaks in BK Mod.

Tor wrote:780 metres per second and 930... and better armor penetration by panther gun.I know what bigger shell lose less energy, but its + for big gun only if this guns have same speed.

Panther have Better penetration over tiger at usual combat range. Nevertheless at 2000 m both gun gun have similar penetration with common pzgr39. and with pzgr40 the 88l56 could be even a bit better. In your opinion what would be the result at very unusual combat range such as 3000 m ?

Remember here, proposition is to extend a bit extreme range distance, so, imo the 88L56 deserve to be in the same category than the 75L70.

Which is simply not proper.The Tiger was designed in 1941 based on a requisition by the Heereswaffenamt dating back to 1937 asking for a heavy tank, supposedly an Infantry Support Tank or "breakthrough-tank", a concept which was popular at the time. However, in 1941 when construction of the Tiger began, those requirements has changed several times, and by 1942 when the first vehicles entered service, the concept was already called into question.

The Panther on the other hand was a newer and modernized development following new requirements based on combat experience in Russia. While the first Panthers were also built in 1942, those were rather horrible machines prone to breakdowns. However, in the following months modifications were made to improve on that, and over the course of 1943 the Panther became a much better, more flexible combat vehicle than the Tiger could ever be. In 1944, which is the timeframe of CoH, the Tiger was a relic based on an old concept while the Panther with constant improvements was a much more capable platform.

So yes, The Panther actually SHOULD be better than the Tiger in all aspects except the power of the HE round (here, caliber actually matters because more explosives means bigger explosions). So the Tiger would be a "Panzer IV E Version 2.0 on Steroids" as originally requested by the Army, but the Panther would be the new go-to vehicle for tank combat.

"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet." - Scott Adams

Too bad that angling is out of question in this game because that would make the Tiger I better armoured than the Panther when angled well and worse when angled the wrong way. You also have to take into consideration that an 88mm shell has bigger diameter and weight than a 75mm one so it's chances of ricochet are lower. Tiger I also had the arguably better armoured turret as most of it was way thicker due to the gun mantlet overlapping most of it in varying strength. Panther had terrible side armour which cannot be modeled properly in this game either so I would argue that making their frontal armour roughly equal would be in order to "pretend" that when the tank faces a foe frontally, they are angling their vehicle properly.

Also I am not sure whether it's modeled ingame but the Panther, even in the G version, had very high chances of catching fire when penetrated since it was built to go through water with a snorkel to cross rivers. This lead to a sealed construction that left a lot of oil and fuel in the belly of the vehicle. I don't know whether the Tiger also had that issue but since fires are out of the question, maybe an increased chance of module damage on penetration would be in order?

I would not even say that the Panther had superior mobility. Especially the later models were throttled and, if you can trust Wikipedia on that, it had higher fuel consumption for some reason. Tiger had 13hp/t and Panther 15 hp/t so the difference in acceleration is small and the top speed is exactly the same on the G model. Granted, the Tiger I had 1.1kg/cm² ground pressure instead of 0.88kg/cm² of the Panther but how big that effect is on the mobility in rough terrain, I don't know.I would however argue that the mobility on average would be only slightly better on the Panther.

I would say that the biggest drawback of the Tiger was it's unjustifiably high price, even if it performing better than the Panther was true (which I don't know), Tiger was double the price of a Panther and it most certainly was not performing twice as well. Making the Tiger I even more expensive might totally remove it from anyone's strategy though.

On the general topic:

I find the Panzer IV Ausf. H/J (why is there no Ausf. I btw?) in BK to be way over performing. Their 80mm frontal hull and 50mm turret armour bounce 76mm shells way too often for my taste. As mentioned earlier by a few people it is kind of odd that it outperforms 76mm Shermans by that margin. I did see my Jumbos having a hard time fighting the Panzer IVs though so that might be worth taking a look into.Shouldn't they be roughly equals to 76mm Shermans?I never noticed the differences in reload speed mentioned in this thread a few times. I must have not payed enough attention. If you have watched a few of The Chieftain's (yes, I know, the WoT guy) "Inside the hatch" videos, the ergonomics of US vehicles seem to be a lot better than those of up gunned British and German ones. I don't know about making reloads very long for some and very short for other tanks but if any tanks in this game should have a RoF advantage, it is the Shermans.

Another tank that surprised me was the Tetrarch with it's incredibly strong 2 pounder with Little John adaptor. Does anyone have penetration tables of it? It penetrated my StuPa from mid distance which very much surprised me.

Too bad that angling is out of question in this game because that would make the Tiger I better armoured than the Panther when angled well and worse when angled the wrong way. You also have to take into consideration that an 88mm shell has bigger diameter and weight than a 75mm one so it's chances of ricochet are lower. Tiger I also had the arguably better armoured turret as most of it was way thicker due to the gun mantlet overlapping most of it in varying strength. Panther had terrible side armour which cannot be modeled properly in this game either so I would argue that making their frontal armour roughly equal would be in order to "pretend" that when the tank faces a foe frontally, they are angling their vehicle properly.

Also I am not sure whether it's modeled ingame but the Panther, even in the G version, had very high chances of catching fire when penetrated since it was built to go through water with a snorkel to cross rivers. This lead to a sealed construction that left a lot of oil and fuel in the belly of the vehicle. I don't know whether the Tiger also had that issue but since fires are out of the question, maybe an increased chance of module damage on penetration would be in order?

I would not even say that the Panther had superior mobility. Especially the later models were throttled and, if you can trust Wikipedia on that, it had higher fuel consumption for some reason. Tiger had 13hp/t and Panther 15 hp/t so the difference in acceleration is small and the top speed is exactly the same on the G model. Granted, the Tiger I had 1.1kg/cm² ground pressure instead of 0.88kg/cm² of the Panther but how big that effect is on the mobility in rough terrain, I don't know.I would however argue that the mobility on average would be only slightly better on the Panther.

I would say that the biggest drawback of the Tiger was it's unjustifiably high price, even if it performing better than the Panther was true (which I don't know), Tiger was double the price of a Panther and it most certainly was not performing twice as well. Making the Tiger I even more expensive might totally remove it from anyone's strategy though.

The Panther weight much less which alone is an advantage. Let alone transport and recovering. Cost wise the Panther cost a bit more Reichsmark than a Tank IV while tiger had a cost almost three times that of a Panther and for the material cost of one Tiger you could build two Panther. The Panther was horrible in terms of reliability in 1943. But the G that came during 44 was quite reliable.

The Panther could be build faster and in larger numbers. So in design, intention and other aspects the panther can be seen as one of the first really effective main battle tanks in history.

Btw, Tigers do not belong in my strategic planings. If anything would make me really considering using them, then if Wehrmacht would get some kind of Breakthrough doctrine which emphasizes on tigers and letting them play a key role. Sadly we have them put in doctrines that have million other good things to spend ressources for. The Tiger isnt bad or too expensive. It just lacks a doctrine. No matter what you gonna do with this tank, without a doc it will never find his correct place in anyones strategy. Here are a few players that swear on them. Those always run for them in every game. Either bc they just love this tank, believe wrong propaganda (new players) or fail to see other options their doctrines provide to handle situations easier with less heavy ressource spendings.

On the general topic:

I find the Panzer IV Ausf. H/J (why is there no Ausf. I btw?) in BK to be way over performing. Their 80mm frontal hull and 50mm turret armour bounce 76mm shells way too often for my taste. As mentioned earlier by a few people it is kind of odd that it outperforms 76mm Shermans by that margin. I did see my Jumbos having a hard time fighting the Panzer IVs though so that might be worth taking a look into.Shouldn't they be roughly equals to 76mm Shermans?I never noticed the differences in reload speed mentioned in this thread a few times. I must have not payed enough attention. If you have watched a few of The Chieftain's (yes, I know, the WoT guy) "Inside the hatch" videos, the ergonomics of US vehicles seem to be a lot better than those of up gunned British and German ones. I don't know about making reloads very long for some and very short for other tanks but if any tanks in this game should have a RoF advantage, it is the Shermans.

Thx. I want to kiss you. I am leading debates for like 3 years here in forum saying exactly this.If you want it more precisley: Max pen for 76 sherman vs Tank IV H or J with skirts: 49,68% (vs J without skirts its 51 or 54%)

Cost:Basically same. The basic cost of J equals arround that of 76 sherman, H those of e8. In BK doc Tank IV´s cost less fuel.Upkeep: Tank IV´s have upper hand, esspecially in terms of fuel. The last supply yard upgrade shortens the gap. In fact even Panther cost less fuel upkeep-

Availability: Tank IV´s can be fielded sooner usually and earlier spammed. Simply bc US pay a bit more for required upgrades and need to boost supply yard first to make spamming possible. Therefor lasts usually longer.

Mobility: Shermans have recently got the upper hand in terms of speed and acceleration. However, and thats why i made this topic, in order to complement the US armor design (factionwide) and to make really an advantage of closing in maneuvers, flanking and mobility they also have to match up or bypass their opponents. Otherwise they keep inferior in ranged combat as well as close range combats.

I did that bc i think you seem to be quite new to this. However you seem to have a lot of understanding about tanks. Check this out if you are interested.:viewtopic.php?f=13&t=329

Thx. I want to kiss you. I am leading debates for like 3 years here in forum saying exactly this.

idem

@ |7th|Nighthawk ; short accurate and clear post, bravo.

@warhawk it is not useful to display stat. mains problems are know ; not only their is something wrong in PIV armour, but also in 76 mm US gun. I also say it for years now. VCOH was more accurate than bk on that. US gun penetration with distance have been calculated on the 90 mm one. And 90 mm US gun have been calculated based on a wrong shell. it would be roughly 1 / 0.9/ 0.8 / 0.7 instead of 1/ 0.84 /0.67 / 0.54

Another tank that surprised me was the Tetrarch with it's incredibly strong 2 pounder with Little John adaptor. Does anyone have penetration tables of it? It penetrated my StuPa from mid distance which very much surprised me.

Must have been one of the lucky shots. When i am right its 7% from max range. I just made a quick check and thats how it seems.

But we here in BK have seen regular 76 shermans oneshoting KT from max range. As long as there is a chance of 0,00001% (you add more "0" to it) for a gun to pen a certain target, then its possible that it gets even oneshoted outright.

|7th|Nighthawk wrote:I did see my Jumbos having a hard time fighting the Panzer IVs though so that might be worth taking a look into.

True, I can confirm that... The gun for Pz.IVs seem to be over-performing against the Jumbo Shermans, specifically when APCR rounds are loaded. I actually never liked the concept of adding APCR rounds to the game.. it ruins the fun! It makes weak guns capable of killing heavily armored tanks.

However, bear in mind please that the Jumbo Shermans in Bk Mod are also MUCH cheaper than supposed. You get the 76 Jumbo Sherman for just 750 MP from off-map, imagine a Tiger1 coming from outside the map for the same cost!!! I believe that if the Jumbo was deploy-able from the tank depot, then it would at least cost as much as Panther.D or something.. which is 110 fuel and yet probably the same MP cost too. Let's also not forget that the 75mm Jumbo Shermans from infantry doctrine are available too early, despite that the Jumbo was a late war tank!

|7th|Nighthawk wrote:Too bad that angling is out of question in this game because that would make the Tiger I better armoured than the Panther when angled well and worse when angled the wrong way. You also have to take into consideration that an 88mm shell has bigger diameter and weight than a 75mm one so it's chances of ricochet are lower. Tiger I also had the arguably better armoured turret as most of it was way thicker due to the gun mantlet overlapping most of it in varying strength. Panther had terrible side armour which cannot be modeled properly in this game either so I would argue that making their frontal armour roughly equal would be in order to "pretend" that when the tank faces a foe frontally, they are angling their vehicle properly.

I also think the same, well said.. and in games such as War Thunder, I like using the Tiger1 Ausf.E much more than Panthers! Hell, I had even scored 12 tank kills several times in realistic battles (5.7 battle rating) with my Tiger1 tank... When the Tiger1 armor is angled correctly, you can even bounce off 122 cannons, and when u combine that with ACE crew, then u r pretty much unstoppable with only 6.5 seconds reload and "microscope" gun sight

|7th|Nighthawk wrote:I would not even say that the Panther had superior mobility.

Well, ya... I wouldn't even compare the speed of the Panther with the Tiger1 in the first place, but it's a fact that the Tiger1 was simply the fastest heavy tank ever during the 2nd world war. It was faster than Kv-1 as well as IS-1, IS-2, Churchills and even faster than Pershing. And by the way, that's where the "flank speed" ability comes from on the Tiger1 in BK Mod, though... I still think that this ability could be removed from the Tiger1 specifically if the tank would have some more range advantage in return. Nonetheless, realistically the Tiger1 also had the slowest turret when compared to any of these tanks... Which is also the case in BK Mod so far.

Tiger was in no way a revolutionary tank. For all problem engineer had to solve reply was more weight. Tiger is just a PIV with a bigger gun, thicker armour and more powerful engine. With exaggeration we could say it is an archi classical tank made by conservatives and not so much inspired engineers. However it was a formidable propaganda weapon, and it is probably it this area it was the most successful. So successful that it still work today.

Speed theoric speed is high, but in practice such speed was unreachable, and probably no tank commander would had try in fear of mechanical breakdown. Tiger was also, in theory able to pivot on its axis (turn on itself). A few tanks at this time could do that, but once more commander avoided it in fear to break something. And it was wise because you know what ? When tiger was requested, nobody though about an adapted rescue vehicle. Famo was good for a 20 tons PZIV, but a 57 T monster was an other matter.

However, bear in mind please that the Jumbo Shermans in Bk Mod are also MUCH cheaper than supposed. You get the 76 Jumbo Sherman for just 750 MP from off-map, imagine a Tiger1 coming from outside the map for the same cost!!! I believe that if the Jumbo was deploy-able from the tank depot, then it would at least cost as much as Panther.D or something.. which is 110 fuel and yet probably the same MP cost too. Let's also not forget that the 75mm Jumbo Shermans from infantry doctrine are available too early, despite that the Jumbo was a late war tank!

Imagine hellcats one hit killing Tiger I 50% of the time from camo. The armour of the the jumbo is non existant, the only reason to get the jumbo is becuase it doesn't cost fuel. And you need 5 buildings to get sherman jumbo 75, and the setting is latewar....

Yeah, I agree with most of what you stated. By the time the Tiger I is available, it really serves no purpose for the respective doctrines anymore. It's more of a nice to have gimmick but most of the time the other tanks in higher numbers simply do it better (which is maybe exactly what should be shown? ).

Odd, I mean I get that the Panzer IV had face hardened armour and thus had "more" effective armour than on paper but I doubt that the 76mm gun that should have a lot more average penetration than that (I believe around 130mm@500m on average? Don't quote me on this) should have that much of a hard time to penetrate it - as shouldn't the Panzer IV vice versa with it's rather penetration in comparison to the also not too impressive Sherman armour (even with sandbags). I don't really get why the Panzer IV gets a damage boost with APCR while the Sherman does not. The Panzergranate 39 had explosive filler while the Panzergranate 40 did not. This, in combination with the soft steel that was used on Shermans, should actually do less damage since armour spalling was very low because of it. The regular AP on 76mm Shermans had no explosive filler because the fuses on the APHE were bad(?). It would make more sense for the Panzer IV to make more damage with standard AP than the Sherman and less damage with APCR and instead give the Sherman and edge with APCR since I would assume that the spalling on successful penetration was way higher on harder steel. Reversing the roles like that would lead to a huge hit on balance however so I am not sure how good of an idea that is.On a side note, I find the US to be way harder to play well because nothing they have has a lot of punch, including their tanks. You have to babysit every unit you have because it can be wrecked in seconds by anything. Brits don't have that issue because while you have to watch out for your tanks, your infantry can really take a beating and punish the enemy. As someone who is more of a beginner, especially in PvP, I find the US to be the most useless faction to me, also because of their tanks that can't deal with Panzer IV Ausf. H unless you call in the very expensive big guns at which point the enemy usually also has brought a big cat to the table.My map choice on my replay post was criticized but the average map really does not allow a lot of flanking so I find myself slugging it out frontally quite often, which, in case of the US vehicles, is very much an uphill battle, especially if you did not choose armour doctrine.

Thanks for the link! Nice compilation you have there

Oh yeah, must have been a lucky dice roll then. What, you can oneshot a Tiger II with a 76mm?

@Tiger1996:

Yes, a bit like the "press 2 twice" in WoT you mean. It costs quite a bit of ammo however and I believe that most tanks did have around 5 rounds of APCR/HVAP, whatever you call it, to deal with tough targets so I think it's fair to have it in game.Speaking of APDS: I take it it's not possible to accurately represent the awful accuracy of early APDS rounds? I have heard a lot of complaints about the Achilles and while I don't necessarily agree with stripping it of it's camo ability, I do understand the issue that it is overall way more versatile than the Firefly, available to all doctrines and relatively cheap as well. Coming out of camo to give a Panther a full broadside with APDS feels satisfying but I don't think it should be able to accurately hit it on max distance in the first place when you load APDS. Likewise, is it possible to produce a higher drop off in penetration for APCR? I am not sure that bigger caliber (75mm+) APCR drops below regular AP penetration on combat distances but I do know that especially earlier, small caliber ones tended to drop off rather quickly so that it was only a close range solution.I don't know whether that would improve the gameplay because it would probably only incentivize Allies to yolo-rush German tanks in order to make their APCR/APDS shine. Germans probably only really need APCR against Jumbos, Pershings and Churchills which is not much as all of them are doctrine specific vehicles and in the case of the Jumbo, one of the variants won't ever tickle anything above a Panzer IV Ausf. F2.

Oh in War Thunder I did find the Panther Ausf. D to be an incredibly potent vehicle on 5.7 as long as you could place it's front toward the enemy. I had a game on that one map with the ditch to the one side with the destroyed train bridge (cannot remember the name) where I sniped over said ditch with the L/70 against Jumbos and other stuff in a realistic battle in which I amassed more than a dozen kills and was not killed once, only losing a crew member to a penetrating shot on the gun mantlet and later two more to the balanced P47. The tank was completely in pieces after that but I was alive in the end.I do love the Tiger in this game but it does not profit from random bounces as much. The turret won't be penetrated a lot, sure, but those upper glacis bounces the Panther can pull off against even very high penetration guns (20pdr and the like), the Tiger rarely does. I call them bullshit bounces because it's the same kind of mechanic that has my 88mm bounce off the side of a T-34/85 and the 128mm of the Sturer Emil bounce off the front of a goddamn M10. I did rage quit after that kind of event happened in two consecutive games. Driving an IS tank backwards or nuking people with the SU-152 and KV-2 is way more satisfying. Also: Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G have to be the best medium tanks tier per tier. That gun is simply a dream to shoot.

Quick question to you since you mentioned it elsewhere and it fits here: Why does flanking speed on tanks cost ammo instead of fuel?

@Jalis:

Thanks, now prepare yourself for a very long and rambling post

What you say is true but most of it also applies to Panther which was an incredibly front heavy tank (apparently like the late Panzer IV, only heavier overall) that wore out it's final drive(?) very quickly. Pivoting was also better avoided on Panther as it got a lot of mud and debris into the complex Schachtellaufwerk and, from what I remember, even threw off the track when the conditions were bad enough. I imagine that getting a stuck Tiger out of a ditch was difficult task because of it's weight but I imagine that a Panther tank, while weighing twelve tons less, was also a pain to recover (probably needed a Bergetiger ) The biggest advantage the Tiger had over the Panther was that it had meaningful side armour and thus was not able to be penetrated from long distances by smaller caliber guns, including the 75mm on the earlier Shermans, or in the case of Panther without sideskirts, by PTRS and the likes. All of those things cannot be modeled sadly however as mentioned earlier.I would make the Tiger slightly less mobile, give it slightly less penetration chance than the Panther but superior anti infantry capabilities as well as enhanced survivability because of way stronger side and rear armour coupled with a roomy interior. It's already very expensive and as others have mentioned, it's rarely built because it's a big game changer. I find it to arrive to the battlefield way too late to do anything and it almost feels like it's armour is as strong as that of a Panzer IV Ausf. H, with only it's gun being something to fear for the enemy tanks. Getting a Tiger to the veterancy level to make use of it's full potential is also quite challenging because you spent so much resources on it, thus have not much "mass" to divert attention from it, leading to the enemy focusing his firepower on it which will very quickly wreck a Tiger if you throw in a bit of arty and APCR or APDS.Let's face it, the only reason to get a Tiger tank in BK is because it looks sexy as hell. I still find it to be the most menacing looking tank in WWII, just because it is big and boxy. Panther and Tiger II look great as well but don't have an as dangerous look to them in my opinion because they are more streamlined.It's the same reason I love the KV-2 because it takes that big and boxy theme to a different level ;D

Welcome, You will soon realize that BK is far from realistic and it was created on the concept of axis are titans and allies are russian-like expandable corpses. This effect was changed a bit to less extreme by current developers, but still dwelling strong.

Ideas about ammunition and armor will never pass and even if i did there is not enough manpower for such overhaul, because gameplay balance is very fragile. So you better learn to smack that off-map and planes on those nasty pzIV lol

|7th|Nighthawk wrote:Quick question to you since you mentioned it elsewhere and it fits here: Why does flanking speed on tanks cost ammo instead of fuel?

Ya, never understood why... I actually talked with Kr0noZ on Discord about this! It reminds me of the BAR upgrade requiring 60 fuel in vanilla CoH for Riflemen.. probably producing chocolates in the future would require some plastic too It's weird

Though, we gotta keep in mind by the way.. that once the flank speed is activated for any tank, your fuel income would be significantly reduced until the ability is no longer active... However, of course this still doesn't justify requiring ammunition to activate.

I also do agree with most of ur other points, hence... I find the Tiger tank in Blitz doctrine to be one of the best, if not the best tank in the game. Specifically on some particular maps, most especially on high resources games.. it can arrive only within the first 15 minutes of the game!! Believe it or not.. but I have done it several times too! I have even got some recent videos where I have achieved that, and eventually scored veterancy level 4 with my Tiger1 tank since that the opponent team didn't have much to counter it, as it arrived too soon. And yes, I love the look of the Tiger tank too ^^ Despite it's a bit boxy.. yet, it looks very cool somehow compared to other boxy tanks in WW2 ==================================================================================Nonetheless, to be honest... I think currently Allied in Bk Mod are both about superior NUMBERS but ALSO high effective QUALITY at the same time! Axis on the other hand are more about hardcore QUALITY which is superior to the Allied quality of course, however.. it's just only about that.

Well, as to why stuff costs what it does... I have no official explanation, but I guess I know why the Relic guys made it that way.When you have 3 ressources to work with, you simply find combinations of requirements that you think lead to a balanced game (which it did) and then find cool names for those resources and give them according icons.Personally, I think going a little more abstract would be one way to solve that.

Think about it like this:

Base buildings - are not really the factories that make the stuff, they symbolize staging areas to which requested units get delivered (by train or truck), this isn't actually shown; these logistics elements are the reason why these cost fuel (see below)Manpower - is not actually people, but hours worked by the staff at your base as well as by people in the factories where the stuff actually gets madeAmmo - would be more aptly called supplies and encompasses all stuff that units don't have as base gear or stuff that gets expended in the field and needs replacementFuel - more properly known as Logistics is needed to bring heavy machinery and vehicles to your section of the fronlines from elsewhere

Of course that analogy also breaks down if you go deep enough into it, also in some cases the devs previously took it more literal than that as well so now some stuff doesn't fit these categories, but generally it works well enough as an abstraction I think.

"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet." - Scott Adams

Munition isn't meant to be a pure "munition" resource but a representation of unit actions and activating capabilities. So actions like flank speed cost munitions because flank speed is a capability. flame throwers cost munition because flames is a new weapon type thus adding a new capability.Fuel isn't meant to be a pure "fuel" resource but a representation of permanent global enhancements and "tech" advancement resource, like Kronoz said about a representation of logistics. So british officers cost fuel because they advance the brits through the tech tree.

I relooked at some of the resource meanings in my own mod to "flex" them more as unit limiters. For example, i worked in single digits where every infantry entity costs 1 manpower (so a squad of 4 costs 4 mp) but never any munitions even if they come with alternative weapons and abilities (so grenades never cost munitions). Meanwhile, every vehicle type costs 1 fuel. Everything off map I made cost munitions. This meant that everything on the field can be used to its fullest extent and the resource management became a game of unit composition decisions, not tactical. The decision for my unit to throw a grenade does not impact my decision to call in an MG. My decision to call in an off map smoke barrage does not influence my decision to call in a m8 scott. Resource management can be whatever a dev wants to encourage in his/her mod.

Yeah, I agree with most of what you stated. By the time the Tiger I is available, it really serves no purpose for the respective doctrines anymore. It's more of a nice to have gimmick but most of the time the other tanks in higher numbers simply do it better (which is maybe exactly what should be shown? ).

Odd, I mean I get that the Panzer IV had face hardened armour and thus had "more" effective armour than on paper but I doubt that the 76mm gun that should have a lot more average penetration than that (I believe around 130mm@500m on average? Don't quote me on this) should have that much of a hard time to penetrate it - as shouldn't the Panzer IV vice versa with it's rather penetration in comparison to the also not too impressive Sherman armour (even with sandbags). I don't really get why the Panzer IV gets a damage boost with APCR while the Sherman does not. The Panzergranate 39 had explosive filler while the Panzergranate 40 did not. This, in combination with the soft steel that was used on Shermans, should actually do less damage since armour spalling was very low because of it. The regular AP on 76mm Shermans had no explosive filler because the fuses on the APHE were bad(?). It would make more sense for the Panzer IV to make more damage with standard AP than the Sherman and less damage with APCR and instead give the Sherman and edge with APCR since I would assume that the spalling on successful penetration was way higher on harder steel. Reversing the roles like that would lead to a huge hit on balance however so I am not sure how good of an idea that is.On a side note, I find the US to be way harder to play well because nothing they have has a lot of punch, including their tanks. You have to babysit every unit you have because it can be wrecked in seconds by anything. Brits don't have that issue because while you have to watch out for your tanks, your infantry can really take a beating and punish the enemy. As someone who is more of a beginner, especially in PvP, I find the US to be the most useless faction to me, also because of their tanks that can't deal with Panzer IV Ausf. H unless you call in the very expensive big guns at which point the enemy usually also has brought a big cat to the table.My map choice on my replay post was criticized but the average map really does not allow a lot of flanking so I find myself slugging it out frontally quite often, which, in case of the US vehicles, is very much an uphill battle, especially if you did not choose armour doctrine.

Thanks for the link! Nice compilation you have there

Special AP rounds arent handled as individual weapons anymore (cozed double shot issues) and instead boost the actual weapon used by the unit. So you cant make it that for example axis Pzgr. 40 deals less damage vs shermans and and more to other targets. In Bk US AP rounds boost pen by the most but guns start with very poor basic numbers. Like 1x74 is less than 50x2 at the end. The 76 AP deals normal damage, axis and CW boost damage and US 90mm reduces damage. So you get weird situations in which 17 pdr with AP deals way more damage than a 90 mm with AP does. The 17 pdr special AP (APDS) is the best in game. It gives better boost than axis one (bit less than US) and also damage boost while its activation cost just 50 ammo. 17 pdr also starts with much better basic stats than US 76. For example the 17 pdr pens tank IV by 100%. Use AP just to make sure to oneshot them like when many of them coming for you. Same goes for axis Panther vs sherman. If you are confronted with many load AP. You will have good chances to oneshot them.

All newbies have large issues as US. And without Teamplay and better CW mates you are left to die in many situations. CW is what provides the killer stuff in most games. Best arty, nice inf, good defenses or tanks. Esspecially in AT role.

To your first part of that quote. Yes, axis had often face hardended but also RHA like on panther or tiger. The bigger the armor got the harder it got to make them FHA. The 50 mm plates had a high BHN scale of up to 500. US steel was quite soft as your already figured with approx 210 or what it was. Tigers steel was arround 270 to 300 BHN. Downside is spalling as you also noticed.

When talking about this i remember someone wrote somwehere (perhaps in this thread) that Shermans cant have as much HP as panthers. Well, the W series actually could. Their armor was stored in the most advanced way of any ww2 tank. Right in the center under the turret. No more ammo arround the turret or elsewhere. It was also covered by a wet storage with some liquid stuff to prevent fire and explosions when hit there. So basically it wouldnt be unrealistic if all "W" shermans would have more HP than other medium tanks, including panthers whose ammo was all arround and explosions and fires extremley likely when penetrated. Fire rate by hits into ammo bins was usually at approx 80%. The We shermans were revolutionary with 15%.

Regarding guns: Well idk if the US 76 had better pen than Axis 75 L/48 on tank IV etc. Most sources claim that but thing is that axis tested their guns against their steel harder steel. US against their softer. You can see that for example in the shooting tests of 44. US tested guns first against their soft but got surprised when testing it vs german steel. However german steel cracked in later war tanks due to lack of materials.

War Thunder claims the axis 75 to be a bit stronger while 76 has a huge egde when comparing their HVAP against Pzgr.40. US btw used the M62 APCBC at this time. The M79 was replaced irrc (even though being better at close ranges).

In any way, both the tank IV and sherman could knock out each other from distance. The Turret armor from any Tank IV was never more than 50 mm.

Thing is BK was developed as "axis always quality and expensive, US just cheap". Price discrepancies have been much higher (i remember days wjere i payed 100 fuel for a tank IV H). That was among all units... inf, armor in their respective doctrines.

Same have been for reload times. Like the US 57 reloaded 7 secs vs the 5 secs from elephant or jagdpanther.

Things have changed luckily and we are still in progress i would say. I am pretty sure that armor will also see some reworks. It does not mean that shermans will pen panthers all day long. But these things like sherman vs Panzer IV will hopefully change.

Oh yeah, must have been a lucky dice roll then. What, you can oneshot a Tiger II with a 76mm?

Happens once in a thousand years

@Tiger1996:

Yes, a bit like the "press 2 twice" in WoT you mean. It costs quite a bit of ammo however and I believe that most tanks did have around 5 rounds of APCR/HVAP, whatever you call it, to deal with tough targets so I think it's fair to have it in game.Speaking of APDS: I take it it's not possible to accurately represent the awful accuracy of early APDS rounds? I have heard a lot of complaints about the Achilles and while I don't necessarily agree with stripping it of it's camo ability, I do understand the issue that it is overall way more versatile than the Firefly, available to all doctrines and relatively cheap as well. Coming out of camo to give a Panther a full broadside with APDS feels satisfying but I don't think it should be able to accurately hit it on max distance in the first place when you load APDS. Likewise, is it possible to produce a higher drop off in penetration for APCR? I am not sure that bigger caliber (75mm+) APCR drops below regular AP penetration on combat distances but I do know that especially earlier, small caliber ones tended to drop off rather quickly so that it was only a close range solution.I don't know whether that would improve the gameplay because it would probably only incentivize Allies to yolo-rush German tanks in order to make their APCR/APDS shine. Germans probably only really need APCR against Jumbos, Pershings and Churchills which is not much as all of them are doctrine specific vehicles and in the case of the Jumbo, one of the variants won't ever tickle anything above a Panzer IV Ausf. F2.

Its possbile to reduce APDS accuracy from a technical point of view.A higher drop of for APCR is not possible. As i said, its not treated individually. It boosts/nerfs existing gun values via simple modifiers. But not individually for each range.

Oh in War Thunder I did find the Panther Ausf. D to be an incredibly potent vehicle on 5.7 as long as you could place it's front toward the enemy. I had a game on that one map with the ditch to the one side with the destroyed train bridge (cannot remember the name) where I sniped over said ditch with the L/70 against Jumbos and other stuff in a realistic battle in which I amassed more than a dozen kills and was not killed once, only losing a crew member to a penetrating shot on the gun mantlet and later two more to the balanced P47. The tank was completely in pieces after that but I was alive in the end.I do love the Tiger in this game but it does not profit from random bounces as much. The turret won't be penetrated a lot, sure, but those upper glacis bounces the Panther can pull off against even very high penetration guns (20pdr and the like), the Tiger rarely does. I call them bullshit bounces because it's the same kind of mechanic that has my 88mm bounce off the side of a T-34/85 and the 128mm of the Sturer Emil bounce off the front of a goddamn M10. I did rage quit after that kind of event happened in two consecutive games. Driving an IS tank backwards or nuking people with the SU-152 and KV-2 is way more satisfying. Also: Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G have to be the best medium tanks tier per tier. That gun is simply a dream to shoot.

Quick question to you since you mentioned it elsewhere and it fits here: Why does flanking speed on tanks cost ammo instead of fuel?

Its one thing to pen on paper and another in reality. Panthers bounced from sherman front when angel was too huge. The Upper glacis of Panther could also bounce the 90 mm guns from as short as 700 meters directly at the front. But i think your happenings have been simply unrealistic when seeing the angel of impact.

How much fuel shall it cost? And why does airplanes cost only ammo? You see you could place many such questions^^.

@Jalis:

Thanks, now prepare yourself for a very long and rambling post

What you say is true but most of it also applies to Panther which was an incredibly front heavy tank (apparently like the late Panzer IV, only heavier overall) that wore out it's final drive(?) very quickly. Pivoting was also better avoided on Panther as it got a lot of mud and debris into the complex Schachtellaufwerk and, from what I remember, even threw off the track when the conditions were bad enough. I imagine that getting a stuck Tiger out of a ditch was difficult task because of it's weight but I imagine that a Panther tank, while weighing twelve tons less, was also a pain to recover (probably needed a Bergetiger ) The biggest advantage the Tiger had over the Panther was that it had meaningful side armour and thus was not able to be penetrated from long distances by smaller caliber guns, including the 75mm on the earlier Shermans, or in the case of Panther without sideskirts, by PTRS and the likes. All of those things cannot be modeled sadly however as mentioned earlier.I would make the Tiger slightly less mobile, give it slightly less penetration chance than the Panther but superior anti infantry capabilities as well as enhanced survivability because of way stronger side and rear armour coupled with a roomy interior. It's already very expensive and as others have mentioned, it's rarely built because it's a big game changer. I find it to arrive to the battlefield way too late to do anything and it almost feels like it's armour is as strong as that of a Panzer IV Ausf. H, with only it's gun being something to fear for the enemy tanks. Getting a Tiger to the veterancy level to make use of it's full potential is also quite challenging because you spent so much resources on it, thus have not much "mass" to divert attention from it, leading to the enemy focusing his firepower on it which will very quickly wreck a Tiger if you throw in a bit of arty and APCR or APDS.Let's face it, the only reason to get a Tiger tank in BK is because it looks sexy as hell. I still find it to be the most menacing looking tank in WWII, just because it is big and boxy. Panther and Tiger II look great as well but don't have an as dangerous look to them in my opinion because they are more streamlined.It's the same reason I love the KV-2 because it takes that big and boxy theme to a different level ;D

There were just three Bergetiger build. The Bergepanther was more common, still far not in numbers necessary.

Side or rear can partly by modeled. You have a rear pen modifier. If you set the low enough shots that visually look like side shots can bounce since the shell would bounce from front with some chance to bounce from rear as well. So for example the 75 mm gun could have lower rear pen chance vs tiger as vs panther or the rear pen modifier against panther simply put very high. That way the one or other visually side shot goes through.

Yeah, it makes sense that ammo is not necessarily ammo and fuel only fuel. I just found it odd on a first glance. Thanks for the replies!

Yes, I'm sure that tweaking one unit a little bit can have a huge impact on the rest but this glaring imbalance does really feel off. Having the different 75mm L/24 vehicles have very different combat ranges seems okay to me but having roughly historical equals perform so differently feels a little odd to me.

Ah yeah, too bad but probably still better than an auto loading Hellcat What about HE though? That seems to be a very different shell. Is the mechanic that much different from it? It does not seem that loading HE, be it the single shell, the timed duration or the infinite duration, affects the reload for tanks to become auto loaders all of a sudden.

Yes, those SAS and Marine Commandos are an incredible joy to play and the Achilles feels like a menace. I find it hard and kinda unsatisfying to command around blobs of US units that are made out of wet tissue paper. You have to be on high alert all the time because they are only good in numbers but should not be blobbed because of arty. I do imagine that a very skilled player can make them shine, same for that clunky command Greyhound. I imagine that it has great abilities but positioning it well, timing the boost well etc etc really takes a lot of experience, I would imagine.

Yes, but whatever stats are really true, I would say that the L/48 and 76mm should be roughly on par for gameplay purposes, maybe having vary in different areas to still keep a unique feel to it (like making the L/48 more accurate but the 76mm faster firing or something). Have the Panzer IV have more view range when stationary to mirror the good gun sights and the general defensive nature of German tactics in 1944 while the Sherman would have better view range while driving because most crew members had better all around view in a Sherman. Just a few ideas, none of them have to be implemented. I just feel that right now the Sherman 76 is an all around worse tank to the Panzer IV with very little justifying it except for game play reasons, which should always come first, obviously, but I stand by my point that if you use real life units, they should at least somewhat reflect what they were IRL. I mean take the Hellcat and M10 in vanilla that had completely reversed roles in comparison to reality. That felt so wrong if you knew just a tiny bit about the vehicles.

Lol yes, the side bounce on the T-34 was definitely bullshit and the bounce on the M10 was, while angled quite a bit, bullshit as well because it would either have turned "into" the armour or it would have bounced off into the turret, creating huge damage there.

Yeah, I wonder why they did not model side armour in the first place because those frontal hits on the side armour look ridicolous on some vehicles.

Jesus this forum turned in walls of garbage texts in every topic, written mostly by a few people that are so convinced that they know so much about this game (like Warhawks who doest play at all or like Tiger and Kwok who just keep repating same things over and over again) This is very sad. I havent seen Markr here for a while and I bet and hope he is not gonna read thru all this trash. You guys could actually talk in private and there would be no difference.Sad forum for sad people

Why do you even bother? This is not a north korean forum or other sort of dictatorship where we are forced to talk in a certain way or forbid to talk at all.If we want to talk, we talk. Nobody has to bother or care about it.Its just sharing of ideas and everybody is free to like it or not. Everybody can make his own opinion. If you think its garbage, fine, i dont care. But You dont have to be the one "King" that points at everything and decide what is trash and whats not. And Markr can make his very own opinion. Perhaps you can ask him if he wants you to be his secretary that makes the decision what stuff will be put on his desk and whats not.

JimQwilleran wrote:Jesus this forum turned in walls of garbage texts in every topic, written mostly by a few people that are so convinced that they know so much about this game (like Warhawks who doest play at all or like Tiger and Kwok who just keep repating same things over and over again) This is very sad. I havent seen Markr here for a while and I bet and hope he is not gonna read thru all this trash. You guys could actually talk in private and there would be no difference.Sad forum for sad people

I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, there's a lot of repetition here... but you're not constructive either - maybe help change thing instead of complaining? I'm sure you have an opinion as well, why not share it?

Warhawks97 wrote:Why do you even bother? This is not a north korean forum or other sort of dictatorship where we are forced to talk in a certain way or forbid to talk at all.If we want to talk, we talk. Nobody has to bother or care about it.Its just sharing of ideas and everybody is free to like it or not. Everybody can make his own opinion. If you think its garbage, fine, i dont care. But You dont have to be the one "King" that points at everything and decide what is trash and whats not. And Markr can make his very own opinion. Perhaps you can ask him if he wants you to be his secretary that makes the decision what stuff will be put on his desk and whats not.

Don't be that guy who has to return everything with sarkasm please...

"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet." - Scott Adams

JimQwilleran wrote:Jesus this forum turned in walls of garbage texts in every topic, written mostly by a few people that are so convinced that they know so much about this game (like Warhawks who doest play at all or like Tiger and Kwok who just keep repating same things over and over again) This is very sad. I havent seen Markr here for a while and I bet and hope he is not gonna read thru all this trash. You guys could actually talk in private and there would be no difference.Sad forum for sad people

the people you mention are the only people who actually keep this community alive in many ways, by helping new people or by answering questions or by offering new ideas or by spreading more popularity to the game. if you dont like their suggestions, feel free to drop off yours.